• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Continuing Problems with Paleoclimate Proxies

From the comments in the link at #8:



  • 4fc558056197e6d0979fc3a5c7d99d69
    niclewis
    Posted Oct 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM | Permalink | Reply​
    “As always, the world owes you immense thanks for your tireless work in revealing this unending deception time after time.”
    Well said, Willis; absolutely right.
    Steve, you certainly have my thanks. It is appalling that such unworthy and completely unscientific behaviour is still continuing 20 years after Mann’s original hockey stick paper.
 
[h=3]Von Storch: Hockeysticks, the tragedy of the commons and sustainability of climate science[/h]Jul 6, 2005 – 1:58 PM
Hockeysticks, the tragedy of the commons and sustainability of climate science. Hans von Storch – Director of Institute of Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht. Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Germany Panelists: Warren Washington, Caspar Amman and Doug Nychka, NCAR, and Roger Pielke Jr. (CIRES) Location: Mesa […]
 
[h=3]National Post: Re-visiting the Stick[/h]Jun 17, 2005 – 6:49 AM
I have a lengthy op ed in today’s National Post go here summarizing some of the debate since publication of our 2005 articles. The article is on page FP19. Update: The link is now offline. Here is the text as I submitted it to National Post; it may differ a little, but not much.
 
The most famous (infamous) example of the malpractice that has become the standard for the field.

[h=3]Cherry-Picking by D’Arrigo[/h]Jan 29, 2016 – 1:28 PM
One of the longest standing Climate Audit issues with paleoclimate reconstructions is ex post decisions on inclusion/exclusion of data, of which ex post decisions on inclusion/exclusion of sites/data in “regional [treering] chronologies” is one important family. This was the issue in the original Yamal controversy, in response to which Briffa stated that they “would never select or manipulate […]
 
The prequel:

[h=3]D'Arrigo: Making Cherry Pie[/h]Mar 7, 2006 – 5:09 PM
D’Arrigo presented their new study. I went over and introduced myself and said that I thought that their new study was much better than Osborn and Briffa and that it was too bad that they hadn’t received the same publicity. She said – Well, I guess that’s a compliment of sorts. I was trying to […]
 
Jack Hays said:
The prequel:

[h=3]D'Arrigo: Making Cherry Pie[/h]Mar 7, 2006 – 5:09 PM
D’Arrigo presented their new study. I went over and introduced myself and said that I thought that their new study was much better than Osborn and Briffa and that it was too bad that they hadn’t received the same publicity. She said – Well, I guess that’s a compliment of sorts. I was trying to […]
Click to expand...

Yep. If you wish to create a cherry pie your guests will like, you pick the cherries that suit their palate.
 
The beat goes on . . . .

[h=3]PAGES2017: New Cherry Pie[/h]Jul 11, 2017 – 11:31 PM
Rosanne D’Arrigo once explained to an astounded National Academy of Sciences panel that you had to pick cherries if you wanted to make cherry pie – a practice followed by D’Arrigo and Jacoby who, for their reconstructions, selected tree ring chronologies which went the “right” way and discarded those that went the wrong way – […]
 
[h=3]Another Upside-Down PAGES2K Non-Corrigendum[/h]Mar 17, 2015 – 8:37 PM
Kaufman and McKay recently and quietly issued an Arctic2K correction file at NOAA xls here that concedes yet another upside-down series previously pointed out to them at Climate Audit. Once again, they used information from Climate Audit without acknowledgement or credit (see NSF definition of plagiarism here).
 
[h=3]David Holland on the Hockey Stick Affair[/h]Nov 8, 2007 – 1:30 PM
David Holland has a new and interesting article entiitled “Bias And Concealment In The IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair And Its Implications” in which the proprietor of this blog is mentioned on occasion.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]David Holland on the Hockey Stick Affair[/h]Nov 8, 2007 – 1:30 PM
David Holland has a new and interesting article entiitled “Bias And Concealment In The IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair And Its Implications” in which the proprietor of this blog is mentioned on occasion.
Click to expand...

Well, the tinyurl takes us to the wrong site. Did they do this by intent, or did shrinking a URL produce the same six characters? I guess tinyurl has it's faults too...

Anyway, I didn't find the whole paper, but I found the following.

Abstract: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830507782616788

Excepts: Tom Nelson: “Bias And Concealment In The IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair And Its Implications”
 
Making Hockey Sticks the Jones Way

Jun 4, 2006 – 3:13 PM
I discussed Fisher’s Greenland dO!8 proxy yesterday and thought that it would be interesting to discuss its particular function in hockey stick manufacture in Jones et al 1998. Each hockey stick is, after all, made by a master craftsman. The Greenland dO18 is one of only 10 series in Jones et al 1998. Let’s see […]
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, the tinyurl takes us to the wrong site. Did they do this by intent, or did shrinking a URL produce the same six characters? I guess tinyurl has it's faults too...

Anyway, I didn't find the whole paper, but I found the following.

Abstract: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830507782616788

Excepts: Tom Nelson: “Bias And Concealment In The IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair And Its Implications”
Click to expand...

‘Energy and the Environment’.

A discredited denier journal.

And it’s oddly from 2007.

How embarrassing.
 
Threegoofs said:
‘Energy and the Environment’.

A discredited denier journal.

And it’s oddly from 2007.

How embarrassing.
Click to expand...

The long-ago dates are part of the issue. I just posted another from 2006. The point is to expose how long the rot has been there. Hence "continuing problems."
 
Jack Hays said:
The long-ago dates are part of the issue. I just posted another from 2006. The point is to expose how long the rot has been there. Hence "continuing problems."
Click to expand...

In other words, you can’t find anything more recent because the paleoclimatologist record has been reconfirmed dozens of times since then, and while nutjobs were denying it in 2006, only the really embarrassing nut jobs deny it in 2018.
 
Threegoofs said:
In other words, you can’t find anything more recent because the paleoclimatologist record has been reconfirmed dozens of times since then, and while nutjobs were denying it in 2006, only the really embarrassing nut jobs deny it in 2018.
Click to expand...

This thread was started with two damning critiques from October 2018. The malpractice that has corrupted paleoclimatology is a continuing problem with deep roots. The purpose of this thread is to expose that.
 
Jack Hays said:
This thread was started with two damning critiques from October 2018. The malpractice that has corrupted paleoclimatology is a continuing problem with deep roots. The purpose of this thread is to expose that.
Click to expand...

I guess you don’t recognize embarrassing nutjobs when you see them.

Explains why you still cut and paste Monckton.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess you don’t recognize embarrassing nutjobs when you see them.

Explains why you still cut and paste Monckton.
Click to expand...

Only embarrassing those whose shoddy work is exposed. More relevant to this thread is Steve McIntyre, a real hero.
 
Threegoofs said:
‘Energy and the Environment’.

A discredited denier journal.

And it’s oddly from 2007.

How embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Even funnier is Tom Nelson's blog. I've run into him on twitter from time to time. He's a bizarre science denying crank of the sort who denies the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect and uses faked graphs with biblical comments.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess you don’t recognize embarrassing nutjobs when you see them.

Explains why you still cut and paste Monckton.
Click to expand...

They might be more convincing if all their arguments didn't turn out to be based on lies, deception or incompetence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom